Course management systems (CMSs), such as Blackboard, Desire2Learn, or WebCT, have become a common resource at universities, colleges, and distance learning organizations. Research into how these systems are used for learning is in an early state. Currently, this research focuses on technical features in a CMS more than research about how people learn. This article recommends a model for CMS research that equally considers technical features and research about how people learn. Technical features and learning research are diverse topics. The model was developed by reviewing literature from each topic and should provide a conceptual middle ground. Findings from current CMS research are presented using the model, to show its relevance and adaptability. This model should also ease the process of synthesizing research in CMSs created by different vendors, which contain similar features but label them differently. Implications for developing learning activities in a CMS are also described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenI. E., & SeamanJ. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004 (Research Report No. 0-9677741-8-7). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
2.
AllenI. E., & SeamanJ. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005 (Research Report No. 978-0-9766714-2-8). Needham, MA: Sloan-Center for Online Education.
3.
AndersonJ. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
4.
AndersonJ. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
5.
AndrewsD. H., & GoodsonL. A. (1991). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. In AnglinG. J. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 133–155). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
6.
AnsorgeC. J., & BendusO. (2003). The pedagogical impact of course management systems on faculty, students and institutions. In BruningR. H.HornC. A., & PytlikZilligL. M. (Eds.), Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. xxii, 275). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub.
7.
ArabaszP.PiraniJ. A., & FawcettD. (2003). Supporting e-learning in higher education (Research Report No. Vol. 3, 2003). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
8.
BednarA. K.CunninghamD.DuffyT. M., & PerryJ. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In AnglinG. J. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 88–101). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
9.
BennettJ., & BennettL. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. Internet & Higher Education, 6(1), 53.
10.
BergeZ. L., & CollinsM. P. (1995a). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom (Vol. 1: Overview and perspectives). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
11.
BergeZ. L., & CollinsM. P. (1995b). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom (Vol. 2: Higher education). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
12.
BergeZ. L., & CollinsM. P. (1995c). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom (Vol. 3: Distance learning). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
13.
BurtonJ. K.MooreD. M., & MagliaroS. G. (2004). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 3–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
ClarkR. E., & SugrueB. M. (1991). Research on instructional media, 1978–1988. In AnglinG. J. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 327–343). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
15.
DoyleB. (2005). Where the wild CMSs are!EContent, 28(12), 18–18.
16.
DriscollM. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
DriscollM. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
DriscollM. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
19.
DuffyT. M., & CunninghamD. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
20.
DuttonW. H.CheongP. H., & ParkN. (2004). An ecology of constraints on e-learning in higher education: The case of a virtual learning environment. Prometheus, 22(2), 131–149.
21.
ErtmerP., & NewbyT. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–71.
22.
FalvoD. A., & JohnsonB. F.(2005, March). Use and implementation of learning management systems in the US. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, 2005 16th Annual International Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
23.
FoshayW. R., & PreeseF. (2005). Do we need authoring systems? A commercial perspective. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2(3), 249–260.
24.
FoshayW. R.SilberK. H., & StelnickiM. B. (2003). Writing training materials that work: How to train anyone to do anything.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
25.
GagnéR. M.BriggsL. J., & WagerW. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
HannafinM. J., & RieberL. P. (1989a). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer based instructional technologies, Part 1. Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(2), 91–101.
28.
HannafinM. J., & RieberL. P. (1989b). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer based instructional technologies, Part 2. Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(2), 102–114.
29.
HooperS. (1992). Cooperation learning and computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21–38.
30.
HooperS., & HannafinM. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous groups on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(4), 413–424.
31.
HooperS., & ReinartzT. J. (2002). Educational multimedia. In ReiserR. A. & DempseyJ. V. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. ix, 415). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
32.
HooperS.WardT.HannafinM., & ClarkH. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(2), 5–18.
33.
JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (1986). Computer-assisted cooperative learning. Educational Technology, 26(1), 12–18.
34.
JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 785–811). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T., & SmithK. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom.Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
36.
JonassenD. H.PeckK. L., & WilsonB. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
37.
KrendlK. A.WareW. H.ReidK.A., & WarrenR. (1996). Learning by any other name: Communication research traditions in learning and media. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 93–111). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
38.
KvavikR. B., & CarusoJ. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
39.
MarshH. W., & RocheL. A. (1997). Making student's evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187.
40.
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2006). Desire2Learn Implementation Project. Retrieved 8–21–06, 2006, from http://d2l.project.mnscu.edu/.
41.
MorganG. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems.Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
42.
PassmoreD. L. (2000, December 2000). Impediments to adoption of Web-based course delivery among university faculty. ALN Magazine, 4.
43.
RomiszowskiA., & MasonR. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. viii, 1210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
RossS. M., & MorrisonG. R. (1988). Adapting instruction to learner performance and background variables. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 227–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
RussellT. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon.Raleigh, SC: North Carolina State University.
SalisburyD. F. (1988). Effective drill and practice strategies. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 103–123). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48.
SnelbeckerG. E. (1999). Some thoughts about theories, perfection, and instruction. In ReigeluthC. M. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 31–47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49.
WachtelH. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191.
50.
WagnerW., & GagnéR. M. (1988). Designing computer assisted instruction. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 35–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51.
WinnW. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 79–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52.
WoodsR.BakerJ. D., & HopperD. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of Web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Internet & Higher Education, 7(4), 281–297.
